Politics Government intervention

[Clay Davis]

So I was reading this very interesting story, and then read through some of the supporting material, where I came across this:

[Janette Fennell] and her husband were the victims of a push-in home invasion. As the garage door slowly closed, armed men rolled in under it.
They ordered Janette and her husband into the trunk of their car, drove to an ATM, had them pillage the ATM.
Then they locked them back in the trunk and left them to die. They almost did, because there were no trunk release levers on the inside of trunks back then.
They managed to claw their way out. And Fennell had a mission. The car manufacturers fought her over a device that would have cost something like ten cents per car -- eventually she won, which is why all cars have an inside trunk release.

A bit of her research turned up the fact that there had been 931 similar incidents in 25 years.

The end result of her push is the requirement of car manufacturers do have boot releases on the inside. This has been legislated for by govt.

So what is this? Nanny statism? The evil hand of big government telling car companies what to do? Is this practice of govts interfering something that must end? Would the market have sorted it out? If so, when?

 

[Andre]

So what is this? Nanny statism? The evil hand of big government telling car companies what to do? Is this practice of govts interfering something that must end? Would the market have sorted it out? If so, when?

Would the market have fitted seats belts to all new cars, or left them as optional extras without laws? I don't think too many say the government should never interfere. Just as little as possible. If it something will save lives and doesn't interfere with people's free will then the government can have a role. If someone wants to lock themselves in the boot and suffocate themselves they still can

It's when government butts into things that people do, that don't harm themselves or any others (which is why anti-smoking laws are fine, as smokers weren't being considerate enough to never smoke near non-smokers everywhere all on their own), that they should stay out.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Should Governments have legislated for ships to have more than enough life rafts to accomodate everyone and to keep a 24 hour radio watch after the Titanic sunk?

 

[HarryTiger]

The markets would have sorted it out IF the consumers widely held a fear of getting locked in their car boots. In such a scenario consumers will have a tendency to opt for the vehicles that have that 10 cent device installed. The manufacturers balancing the cost of losing 1 customer with the cost of installing that device in one car (10 cents, as said) would opt to install the device.

As almost no one has that particular fear the markets would not have sorted it out.

It sounds like a case of sensible government interventionism, as opposed to say fining people hundreds of dollars for allowing a pooch to walk off a leash in a park which is an extreme penalty for a minor offence.

You just gotta use your brain a bit to determine where on the scale of 'nannyism' a certain case of state intervention sits.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

How dare governments legislate design standards?

ADR's have existed since 1969. This would classified as an issue regarding occupant safety, no different from seat belts.

 

[Helicopter Punt]

So what is this? Nanny statism? The evil hand of big government telling car companies what to do? Is this practice of govts interfering something that must end? Would the market have sorted it out? If so, when?

I wouldn't think so. In this case they are regulating corporations not individuals.
Seems like a case of them actually performing their jobs and looking after the best interests (safety) of their electors.

 

[Sigh RolleyEyes]

So I was reading this very interesting story,

oh man, that's gut wrenching

always good to be reminded of safety stuff though

 

[Last of the Roys]

What if they cost $1,000 per car; what if it were $10,000?

Where do you draw the line?

Any economist would know you try to draw it by doing an independent cost-benefit analysis (yeah I know, an oxymoron!) or most likely at least some sort of back-of-the-envelope equivalent.

How much would the total cost have been to all new cars made over those 25 years vs. the benefit from the amount of lives saved?

People outside of economics don't like it, but people / Governments put dollar values on lives / safety all the time. They do so when they make choices involving picking one thing / policy over another that involves safety. (Such as the Government choosing to subsidise one drug on the PBS and not another one due to how effective and costly they are).

I don't know the exact value the latest cost-benefit analysis literature put on individual lives, and of course it is not completely accurate, but I will just lay an educated guess it is about $3 million per person (which uses a proxy like income earned over an average person's life). If 1,100 lives saved over 25 years is accurate (big if IMO) then that would equal around $3.3 billion benefit.

The cost = the number of new cars made over 25 years times 10c per car (again highly questionable costing just first thinking about it) - quick look at Wikipedia, another guess 8 million cars a year over 25 years in the US = total cost of $20 million.

Again all of this is just educated guessing, but it wouldn't surprise me if the benefits were only one third of the above and the costs were 20 times what was stated (i.e. $2 per car). Then it would be about $1.1 billion benefit vs. $200 million costs. If it was $20 per car then all of the sudden the costs would clearly outweigh the benefits.

As you see it all depends on how accurate your assumptions are. At first glance it may look like a no-brainer as Government should only intervene when the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. But you have to make sure that your assumptions are completely neutral / very accurate.

Unfortunately most of the time in cost-benefit analysis independence and accuracy are usually in short supply.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Governments shouldn't have to legislate and force companies into doing this kind of thing.

It should be market driven through suply and demand.

Rather than petition a Government, petition a car company to produce such an option.

The company that produces that option can then claim it as a selling point and create extra sales through it.

The same could be done for anything the public is required to purchase.

Airbags werent compulsary once, yet cars who did fit them sold quite well due to them being a selling point some customers wanted.

If you've got 30 million cars and you're legislating for something that happens a few times a year then its over governing.

Cars themselves kill a much larger amount of people than those who get locked in car boots. Why don't we limit car speeds to 30kph to ensure the liklihood of that happening ever occuring almost non existant.

 

[Big John]

Governments shouldn't have to legislate and force companies into doing this kind of thing.

It should be market driven through suply and demand.

Rather than petition a Government, petition a car company to produce such an option.

The company that produces that option can then claim it as a selling point and create extra sales through it.

The same could be done for anything the public is required to purchase.

Airbags werent compulsary once, yet cars who did fit them sold quite well due to them being a selling point some customers wanted.

If you've got 30 million cars and you're legislating for something that happens a few times a year then its over governing.

Cars themselves kill a much larger amount of people than those who get locked in car boots. Why don't we limit car speeds to 30kph to ensure the liklihood of that happening ever occuring almost non existant.

Unfortunately the market sometimes (or often) breaks down and governments do have to intervene. In this case, when buying a car, whether one has a boot latch or not is not likely to make the list of things consumers care about. But just consumers don't care about it doesn't mean it isn't a good idea.

 

[Chops_a_must]

The main problem with the intervention is that it has been applied to all indigenous communities, and not just the totally dysfunctional ones.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Unfortunately the market sometimes (or often) breaks down and governments do have to intervene. In this case, when buying a car, whether one has a boot latch or not is not likely to make the list of things consumers care about. But just consumers don't care about it doesn't mean it isn't a good idea.

Conversely the owner can probably have one installed to their own car if it's an issue that they are worried about.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Governments shouldn't have to legislate and force companies into doing this kind of thing.

It should be market driven through suply and demand.

Rather than petition a Government, petition a car company to produce such an option.

The company that produces that option can then claim it as a selling point and create extra sales through it.

The same could be done for anything the public is required to purchase.

Airbags werent compulsary once, yet cars who did fit them sold quite well due to them being a selling point some customers wanted.

If you've got 30 million cars and you're legislating for something that happens a few times a year then its over governing.

Cars themselves kill a much larger amount of people than those who get locked in car boots. Why don't we limit car speeds to 30kph to ensure the liklihood of that happening ever occuring almost non existant.

Ahhhhhh ever the idealogue.

Do you believe in Government enforced sets of safety standards and practices for businesses?

Toxic childrens toys, melanine tainted food products, a spate of avoidable mine collapses and harmful toxic waste disposal, are just a few of the problems facing one country in particular which has very little or innefectual government regulation of the way businesses operate (and products they release) in terms of sets of safety standards and practises.

In some cases there has been a push by consumers/workers to rectify these issues, but often it has been either temporary or confined to to small a segment of the population.

The market is not a magical cureall (no true free market economy exists to my knowledge) and sometimes government intervention or regulation is important to help protect citizens best interests.

Insisting certain safety features are available in highly unsafe vehicles is only one such example. Unfortunately public ignorance and the power corporations weild through the mechanism of the media, can be powerful tools in swaying public opinion against it's own best interests, at least if it is cost effective.

Sometimes bigbrother does have a pupose.

 

[Chops_a_must]

Sometimes bigbrother does have a pupose.

That's like a little dolphin, isn't it?

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Ahhhhhh ever the idealogue.

Do you believe in Government enforced sets of safety standards and practices for businesses?

Toxic childrens toys, melanine tainted food products, a spate of avoidable mine collapses and harmful toxic waste disposal, are just a few of the problems facing one country in particular which has very little or innefectual government regulation of the way businesses operate (and products they release) in terms of sets of safety standards and practises.

In some cases there has been a push by consumers/workers to rectify these issues, but often it has been either temporary or confined to to small a segment of the population.

The market is not a magical cureall (no true free market economy exists to my knowledge) and sometimes government intervention or regulation is important to help protect citizens best interests.

Insisting certain safety features are available in highly unsafe vehicles is only one such example. Unfortunately public ignorance and the power corporations weild through the mechanism of the media, can be powerful tools in swaying public opinion against it's own best interests, at least if it is cost effective.

Sometimes bigbrother does have a pupose.

There's no point comparing laws like seat-belts with the OP original issue.

Seat belts are of benefit to all people. if you choose to wear one. Making a law requiring people to wear them is another issue.

But introducing legislation upon legislation to protect stupid people on the whole from themselves is ridiculous.

It seems these days if something goes wrong in someones life they look to someone else or something to blame for the issue.
Then they expect society to create a situation where peoples hands are held because they can't apply common sense to anything.

 

[Last of the Roys]

There's no point comparing laws like seat-belts with the OP original issue.

Seat belts are of benefit to all people. if you choose to wear one. Making a law requiring people to wear them is another issue.

But introducing legislation upon legislation to protect stupid people on the whole from themselves is ridiculous.

It seems these days if something goes wrong in someones life they look to someone else or something to blame for the issue.
Then they expect society to create a situation where peoples hands are held because they can't apply common sense to anything.

Definitely agree!!!

 

[Helicopter Punt]

There's no point comparing laws like seat-belts with the OP original issue.

Seat belts are of benefit to all people. if you choose to wear one. Making a law requiring people to wear them is another issue.

But introducing legislation upon legislation to protect stupid people on the whole from themselves is ridiculous.

It seems these days if something goes wrong in someones life they look to someone else or something to blame for the issue.
Then they expect society to create a situation where peoples hands are held because they can't apply common sense to anything.

Pretty much agree with each paragraph. But in this case legislation isn't limiting people in any way.
I find legislation regulating individuals and stripping them of constitutional and entrenched inalienable rights 'endowed by our creator' offensive.
(In theory) the government has a duty to it's citizens before any body corporate.
It makes sense for man (in the form of gov) to regulate these entities because they are man made. Who else could possibly ascribe rights and duties if not it's creator?
For the same reason gov is acting outside the bounds and limits of it's authority when it statutorily regulates it's citizens - those it purports to 'represent'.
There is a clear distinction.
Basic safety standards such as in OP are within the scope of good governance imho.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Pool fencing. Should the onus be SOLELY on the parent to make sure a child is 100% supervised around water? Should the government have introduced mandatory fencing laws?

It adds cost to the price of a pool, sure. But it HAS undoubtedly saved lives, and so I think of it as a worthy law.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Pool fencing. Should the onus be SOLELY on the parent to make sure a child is 100% supervised around water? Should the government have introduced mandatory fencing laws?

It adds cost to the price of a pool, sure. But it HAS undoubtedly saved lives, and so I think of it as a worthy law.

And yet if you have no children you are still required to fence off your pool or have your properties fencing constructed in a certain way. Without this you will most likely not get a permit for a pool was my understanding of the law.

So despite a person having no children they are forced to potentially incur extra costs because of such laws.

We are severely over governed at the local council level especially through their by-laws which must be up in thousands. Some of which are so freaking ridiculous it's not funny.

If only a law could be introduced where "common sense" was the legal term and application to which it could be applied to any number of varied issues.

 

[Chops_a_must]

And yet if you have no children you are still required to fence off your pool or have your properties fencing constructed in a certain way. Without this you will most likely not get a permit for a pool was my understanding of the law.

So everyone that would come over to said property, would not have kids at all, or not likely to ever in the future?

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Governments shouldn't have to legislate and force companies into doing this kind of thing.

It should be market driven through suply and demand.

Rather than petition a Government, petition a car company to produce such an option.

The company that produces that option can then claim it as a selling point and create extra sales through it.

The same could be done for anything the public is required to purchase.

Airbags werent compulsary once, yet cars who did fit them sold quite well due to them being a selling point some customers wanted.

If you've got 30 million cars and you're legislating for something that happens a few times a year then its over governing.

Cars themselves kill a much larger amount of people than those who get locked in car boots. Why don't we limit car speeds to 30kph to ensure the liklihood of that happening ever occuring almost non existant.

Emmissions standards, Safety Standards and other Design standards should be self regulated?

The devise costs close to nothing? so whats the issue?

 

[Eastern Rangers]

So everyone that would come over to said property, would not have kids at all, or not likely to ever in the future?

He would "self regulate".

 

[Clay Davis]

But introducing legislation upon legislation to protect stupid people on the whole from themselves is ridiculous.

My original post isn't about protecting stupid people from themselves.

There are a multitude of factors that go into making a decision of why you'd buy a car. Internal releases on a boot would be a remote factor if at all. However, the chance of being locked in a boot is not insignificant. The consequences of it occurring are huge. And the occurrence may have nothing to do with "stupid people" but unfortunate people.

What is the cost? An idea of liberty is greater than a life? How is a concept more important than a person's life? It doesn't actually exist.

 

[Clay Davis]

And yet if you have no children you are still required to fence off your pool or have your properties fencing constructed in a certain way. Without this you will most likely not get a permit for a pool was my understanding of the law.

So despite a person having no children they are forced to potentially incur extra costs because of such laws.

So the law should only apply to people who have children? Fine. Still not very libertarian.

 

[Suspense]

What if they cost $1,000 per car; what if it were $10,000?

Where do you draw the line?

heheh, you remind me of...

[youtube]iPqdRqacpFk[/youtube]

poor kid gets all flustered as milty just sits there with his troll smile.